Minor (yet longwinded!) comment: FWIW, I think that:
Rohin’s comment seems useful
Stephen’s and your rebuttal also seem useful
Stephen’s and your rebuttal does seem relevant to what Rohin said even with his caveat included, rather than replying to a strawman
But the phrasing of your latest comment[1] feels to me overconfident, or somewhat like it’s aiming at rhetorical effect rather than just sharing data and inferences, or somewhat soldier-mindset-y
In particular, personally I dislike the use of “110%”, “maximally”, and maybe “emphatically”.
My intended vibe here isn’t “how dare you” or “this is a huge deal”.
I’m not at all annoyed at you for writing that way, I (think I) can understand why you did (I think you’re genuinely confident in your view and feel you already explained it, and want to indicate that?), and I think your tone in this comment is significant less important than your post itself.
But I do want to convey that I think debates and epistemics on the Forum will typically be better if people avoid adding such flourishes/absolutes/emphatic-ness in situations like this (e.g., where the writing shouldn’t be optimized for engagingness or persuasion but rather collaborative truth-seeking, and where the disagreed-with position isn’t just totally crazy/irrelevant). And I guess what I’d prefer pushing toward is a mindset of curiosity about what’s causing the disagreement and openness to one’s own view also shifting.
(I should flag that I didn’t read the post very carefully, haven’t read all the comments, and haven’t formed a stable/confident view on this topic. Also I’m currently sleep-deprived and expect my reasoning isn’t super clear unfortunately.)
I also think the comment is overconfident in substance, but that’s something that happens often in productive debates, and I think that cost is worth paying and hard to totally avoid if we want productive debates to happen.)
Minor (yet longwinded!) comment: FWIW, I think that:
Rohin’s comment seems useful
Stephen’s and your rebuttal also seem useful
Stephen’s and your rebuttal does seem relevant to what Rohin said even with his caveat included, rather than replying to a strawman
But the phrasing of your latest comment[1] feels to me overconfident, or somewhat like it’s aiming at rhetorical effect rather than just sharing data and inferences, or somewhat soldier-mindset-y
In particular, personally I dislike the use of “110%”, “maximally”, and maybe “emphatically”.
My intended vibe here isn’t “how dare you” or “this is a huge deal”.
I’m not at all annoyed at you for writing that way, I (think I) can understand why you did (I think you’re genuinely confident in your view and feel you already explained it, and want to indicate that?), and I think your tone in this comment is significant less important than your post itself.
But I do want to convey that I think debates and epistemics on the Forum will typically be better if people avoid adding such flourishes/absolutes/emphatic-ness in situations like this (e.g., where the writing shouldn’t be optimized for engagingness or persuasion but rather collaborative truth-seeking, and where the disagreed-with position isn’t just totally crazy/irrelevant). And I guess what I’d prefer pushing toward is a mindset of curiosity about what’s causing the disagreement and openness to one’s own view also shifting.
(I should flag that I didn’t read the post very carefully, haven’t read all the comments, and haven’t formed a stable/confident view on this topic. Also I’m currently sleep-deprived and expect my reasoning isn’t super clear unfortunately.)
I also think the comment is overconfident in substance, but that’s something that happens often in productive debates, and I think that cost is worth paying and hard to totally avoid if we want productive debates to happen.)